Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"

[Gindil]

Yet another person that doesn't understand the First sale doctrine in the US...

Really, that reads more as rhetorical rather than something that is based in any facts.

Especially after the fact that both libraries as well as the used game market, be it SNES titles, NES titles, or anything else, has been around as long as there have been games out.

You're opposed to piracy (something proven irrelevant to developers) because its illegal, but supporting the after market (something quantifiablely harmful to developers) because its legal.

Hypocrisy in its purest, most natural form.

It doesn't matter if its legal, retail chains buying and selling used games actively subverts the commercial viability of video games.

Nope, I get games where I need to. But let me ask a question:

Where would the money for older games go? The games of Tengen, Interplay, or any other publisher that had the misfortune to not be in business anymore?

Should it go to the publisher, the developer, the console maker or just Joe Shmoe?

Perhaps there's more to the argument than "Give it to the first one through the door"

If you read the First doctrine, it gives me, the consumer, the right to do what I want with my physical copy of a game or whatever I buy. I can break it, I can sell it, or whatever. Regardless those terms make it so that the physical copy is my own. If you want to be mad at me because I'm using my legal rights, far be it from me to stop you from trying to impose your own will.

Now, the "hypocrisy". Not seeing it. You haven't talked about a game's first run, where they make money in the first 30-60 days, nor have you discussed how it's hurting their commercial viability. You're merely stating your opinion as fact without anything to back it up. When you can, let me know. I'm patient.

Here, I'll help you. If I can buy a used game for $30, it's a benefit to me. The game, odds are, is no longer commercially viable, as I hinted in my first post by the mention of SNES or NES games. Hell, Sony doesn't even make the PS1 anymore and the PS2 still sells like hotcakes. It plays PS1 games and makes Sony smaller revenue streams. Perhaps not the huge revenue streams of the PS3 with $60 dollar games but the PS2 still pays for itself as a license to print money.

Regarding piracy, I have no idea how you've come to your conclusion. Kindly explain that because I'm lost what you're trying to imply.

 

[Necrofudge]

Never really considered that a problem until now...
Maybe if the original price wasn't 50+ dollars, people would be more tempted to buy a game new.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Okay, I know the price point argument isn't legitimate against piracy, but here, I have to wonder if this isn't an indicator that games are being priced too damn high.

Consider this for just a moment. A new game (ignoring applicable taxes) generally costs $60 USD. This same game can often be resold to a gamestop for 25$ USD while demand is at a peak. This means, the moment you open your game you lose 53.3% of the value. This game, now used, is priced at $54.99 USD, or 91.6% of the original price.

It is not simply that game prices are quite high, it's that the argument of buying used to offset this cost relies on a system where the consumer, the developer and the publisher are all being screwed along the way. Strangely, people pick the publisher or (sometimes at least) the developer as the focus for their anger on the subject rather than the retailer who is the one holding the reigns.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Used games are worse. Here is why: A pirate isn't in a store, looking to buy a game with money in their pocket (on their mom's credit card). A used game buyer is. When the gamestop register monkey says "you want a used copy for $5 less?" they are directly transferring the publisher and developers cut to gamestop stockholders. Gamestop is nothing but a parasite on the industry and I hope the publishers lay the smackdown on them.

Once the dickface working the register said to me "you don't want to save money?" when I told him I wanted a new game instead of a used one. Then I told him "shut the fuck up and ring me up" and he looked like he was going to cry. But he shut up and rang me up.

Oh cool, I bet you attract all the girls.

OT: I like used game sales, whether or not it's good for the industry there is nothing wrong with it. When I finish a game (in the latest case, Dante's Inferno) I let my friend borrow it, and then he lets another friend of ours borrow it. Are we parasites on the industry? Are we evil? No, we just don't feel the need to spend 100 AUS each for the same fucking experience. And used game sales are no different. I trade in my old games so I can get a new game for a fifth of the price. It's not the used game industries fault that I'm never going to play the old games ever again or that someone else out there might want it for a third of the price. Digital distribution may end up destroying retail stores - it's a tough world, but as long as the consumers aren't suffering than who gives a shit. The price for existing in a free market.

 

[Aegwadar]

ugh

See, the problem I have with your mindset is that you think that somehow once i've brought a game, that I can't do what I want with it. I've paid the price it was sold to me at in full. If I want to trade it in, I will. Its MY game.

Heck, I even sell my games to my friends on occasion. I don't want a game and my friend does? Because GAME will only give me £5 and sell it for £20, i'll do my friend a favour and sell it at £15.

I can do that with any car I buy, any house I buy, and any furniture I buy. If i'm not allowed to do what I want with my property (as long as it doesn't physically harm another person or break any laws) I believe that I should be allowed to do what I like with it.

If you came up to me and told me I couldn't do that, i'd just punch you in the throat and tell you to mind your own business. Same thing i'd do to any company representative who thinks the same.

Not to be a dick or anything; but read the EULA for most games.

Basically, your being "licensed" the game. For the sake of argument, you don't actually own the game, you own the right to use it.

For all intents and purposes these gaming companies aren't going to stop letting us sell back used games, nor, can they. They can do the ultimate dick move and start DRM'ing EVERYTHING (or some sort of mutant authentication server)...

Eh. I don't see the problem with someone wanting to make money from their work. If anyone wants to learn something from this; do some research on how hard it actually is designing games. Were talking taking conference calls while your wife is giving birth... If that were me... I would expect at the very least a FAT paycheck..

 

[z0nbie]

I've never bought a used game, but I do enjoy being able to trade my old games in for credit while allowing someone who can't afford "new" buy something as good as new for less ... so this worries me that something may, at some point ,be done to hurt my game cycle ... but I suppose people buy used cars and the big car companies still haven't done anything about that ...

 

[shadow skill]

ugh

See, the problem I have with your mindset is that you think that somehow once i've brought a game, that I can't do what I want with it. I've paid the price it was sold to me at in full. If I want to trade it in, I will. Its MY game.

Heck, I even sell my games to my friends on occasion. I don't want a game and my friend does? Because GAME will only give me £5 and sell it for £20, i'll do my friend a favour and sell it at £15.

I can do that with any car I buy, any house I buy, and any furniture I buy. If i'm not allowed to do what I want with my property (as long as it doesn't physically harm another person or break any laws) I believe that I should be allowed to do what I like with it.

If you came up to me and told me I couldn't do that, i'd just punch you in the throat and tell you to mind your own business. Same thing i'd do to any company representative who thinks the same.

Not to be a dick or anything; but read the EULA for most games.

Basically, your being "licensed" the game. For the sake of argument, you don't actually own the game, you own the right to use it.

For all intents and purposes these gaming companies aren't going to stop letting us sell back used games, nor, can they. They can do the ultimate dick move and start DRM'ing EVERYTHING (or some sort of mutant authentication server)...

Eh. I don't see the problem with someone wanting to make money from their work. If anyone wants to learn something from this; do some research on how hard it actually is designing games. Were talking taking conference calls while your wife is giving birth... If that were me... I would expect at the very least a FAT paycheck..

There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

 

[Aureli]

Unfortunately for game developers, I'm going to continue to buy my games used. My favorite series is Harvest Moon. I have no job due to the current economy. If I want to buy a game, I spend six months to a year scrimping up enough cash to buy my Harvest Moon games, which can only be found in videogame stores like Gamestop. The problem with that is, by the time I have enough money to buy the game I want, it's no longer stocked as a new game, and I have to hunt all over the city to buy it used. So, to get the games I want, I have to make that sacrifice. I would much prefer to buy my games new, because I like the pretty boxes and instruction booklets that come with them, but I just don't have the income to do such things unless I'm really lucky with how much money I make from recycling.

And note, stores like Gamestop have to hold trade-ins for a month before they can sell them used, so even the newest games aren't losing anything from their initial sales.

 

[shadow skill]

blah blah blah

In your example, losing $30 for a worthless piece of completely obsolete hardware, when everything that at one time defined that piece of hardware's value exists in digital form, freely available on the internets, is not a benefit to you. Its a benefit to some greedy dick exploiting your tactile fascination with ancient shit.

But, I, you, games retailers, this article, are not talking about shuttered developers, or games trapped within obsolete hardware we are talking about developers still in existence. So stop trying to guide the argument someplace where it isn't relevant, kay?

Now, the retail business model of "used" games is to offer "used" games at about 10% less than new games. While offering $5-$10 credits for your used games toward the purchase of another used game. The biggest problem is people who buy used feel they've made a legitimate purchase. The dumber ones might even think they're supporting the developers. I didn't quantify much, because hey, this should be completely fucking obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together.

Each instance of piracy has been documented time and time again as not a lost sale, not motivated by price, unaffected by DRM schemes, equally rampant on every platforms, and wholly irrelevant to the market as a whole. But anti-piracy industry cheerleaders are always great at explaining away (or determinedly ignoring) everything that implies "piracy is irrelevant."

While the used game business model is designed from the ground up to pocket as much revenue as possible that should have gone to the publisher/developer.

So, I'm just wondering where the average person's cognitive dissonance in this case lies. Why is piracy pure evil, while retail chains employing business models designed specifically to leech sales from people actually responsible for the creation of video games stock is some high ideal? How is this not hypocrisy?

I hate publishers with a passion, but for better or worse, they actually contribute more to the process than any retail chain. Then, as much as the anti-piracy industry cheerleader hates piracy, no one (outside of shithole third world countries) profit from it. The crackers do it for fun/reputation and p2p runs on the honor system.

and hell, if you're so strapped for cash, rent. Money from rentals actually does get back to developers due to nintendo of america's long legal battle where they attempted to destroy rental chains.

There is no cognitive dissonance involved here unless you do everything you can to avoid using your head. You are trying to argue that buying things used is equivalent to not paying for them at all. The two things are not equivalent in this respect. The only way they are equivalent is that a publisher does not necessarily get any money from the second hand sales. The only problem with this equivalence is that the only reason they don't/wouldn't get any money from the second hand sales is that they have not entered the second hand market directly. In other words they are too stupid to capitalize on an obvious market like car manufacturers are. The end result ironically is that the two things are equally non-issues.

 

[Gindil]

blah blah blah

In your example, losing $30 for a worthless piece of completely obsolete hardware, when everything that at one time defined that piece of hardware's value exists in digital form, freely available on the internets, is not a benefit to you. Its a benefit to some greedy dick exploiting your tactile fascination with ancient shit.

Anger much? If I find the value in it, then it's my benefit. *shrugs*

But, I, you, games retailers, this article, are not talking about shuttered developers, or games trapped within obsolete hardware we are talking about developers still in existence. So stop trying to guide the argument someplace where it isn't relevant, kay?

Actually it is when you're stating that I'm supposedly on a bandwagon and you're not providing any options for debate. Supposedly, we're supposed to send a check to these developers who went out and made these games. That's why it's a question of relative inquiry, not necessarily my entire argument.

Now, the retail business model of "used" games is to offer "used" games at about 10% less than new games. While offering $5-$10 credits for your used games toward the purchase of another used game. The biggest problem is people who buy used feel they've made a legitimate purchase. The dumber ones might even think they're supporting the developers. I didn't quantify much, because hey, this should be completely fucking obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together.

So is the belief that the cheaper used games might be better for certain people.

Each instance of piracy has been documented time and time again as not a lost sale, not motivated by price, unaffected by DRM schemes, equally rampant on every platforms, and wholly irrelevant to the market as a whole. But anti-piracy industry cheerleaders are always great at explaining away (or determinedly ignoring) everything that implies "piracy is irrelevant."

While the used game business model is designed from the ground up to pocket as much revenue as possible that should have gone to the publisher/developer.

I would agree but this gets to my first question: What happens if they were to go away? Ubisoft being a perfect example of poor decisions in structuring a game to only be played on their servers. The used game market allows people to sell off games that they no longer want or desire. And reading some of the EULAs on those things, where they can't return the thing to Wal-Mart or Target if opened only exacerbates the problem.

So, I'm just wondering where the average person's cognitive dissonance in this case lies. Why is piracy pure evil, while retail chains employing business models designed specifically to leech sales from people actually responsible for the creation of video games stock is some high ideal? How is this not hypocrisy?

I hate publishers with a passion, but for better or worse, they actually contribute more to the process than any retail chain. Then, as much as the anti-piracy industry cheerleader hates piracy, no one (outside of shithole third world countries) profit from it. The crackers do it for fun/reputation and p2p runs on the honor system.

and hell, if you're so strapped for cash, rent. Money from rentals actually does get back to developers due to nintendo of america's long legal battle where they attempted to destroy rental chains.

I believe it's how they industry responds to each threat. Piracy is something that the industry makes up as a scapegoat for everything. EA is working to close the gap of lost revenue of the First sale doctrine in the US. Personally, I don't believe that heavy DRM will destroy the piracy crowd, but trying to take away the used sales market is useless. You can lessen it, true but take it away?

I mean, really think about that first sale doctrine. It's been around to reign in books, movies, cds, and everything else for decades. The publishing industry railed against it when books were prevalent in the land. The RIAA continues to rail against this idea (but then again, they use piracy as even more of a scapegoat than the gaming industry). I doubt you will kill the used games market or any other for that matter. In the grand scheme of things, people will continue to buy secondhand when the first time is either too expensive or it's great value. I doubt this will change as our society continues to evolve.

 

[Dexiro]

It's not too hard to save up just a bit of extra money for a game that isn't pre-owned.

I'm super poor and i manage it. The only time i buy preowned games is when they're out of production like old PS2 games.

 

[Aegwadar]

*snip*There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

With all do respect, did you read this? It's merely a fight between two companies. I see no movement to Supreme Court, any change to the Copyright Act.

If you can show me otherwise, I'll will be indebted to you for educating me good sir.

 

[shadow skill]

*snip*There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

With all do respect, did you read this? It's merely a fight between two companies. I see no movement to Supreme Court, any change to the Copyright Act.

If you can show me otherwise, I'll will be indebted to you for educating me good sir.

Yes I read it. Autodesk was arguing that Vernor did not have the right to sell copies of their software because he was only granted a license to use the software and did not own the disks (In the same way you or I own books.) the court found that Vernor did in fact own the software he bought. Read the sections titled conflicting precedents and findings.

 

[Pat728]

Looks like blitz games is going on my list of publishers not to buy games from.

 

[dthree]

*snip*There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

With all do respect, did you read this? It's merely a fight between two companies. I see no movement to Supreme Court, any change to the Copyright Act.

If you can show me otherwise, I'll will be indebted to you for educating me good sir.

Did you miss the sidebar?

Autodesk's motion to dismiss denied because Autodesk distributed copies of its software in transactions that, despite the inclusion of a restrictive license agreement, were best characterized as sales of the copies, giving rise to a right to redistribute those copies under the first-sale doctrine.

 

[Aegwadar]

*snip*There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

With all do respect, did you read this? It's merely a fight between two companies. I see no movement to Supreme Court, any change to the Copyright Act.

If you can show me otherwise, I'll will be indebted to you for educating me good sir.

Yes I read it. Autodesk was arguing that Vernor did not have the right to sell copies of their software because he was only granted a license to use the software and did not own the disks (In the same way you or I own books.) the court found that Vernor did in fact own the software he bought. Read the sections titled conflicting precedents and findings.

Ahh, I see it now... completely buried in garbage wording.. but I see it now.

(Sanity Check here)
Basically, the court decided that "licensing" is bullshit... just like ya said... But, with that in mind, Dude.. Read a EULA... any random one.. there is some questionable wording (much like the court case)... It's almost disgusting.

 

[puffenstuff]

Used games are worse. Here is why: A pirate isn't in a store, looking to buy a game with money in their pocket (on their mom's credit card). A used game buyer is. When the gamestop register monkey says "you want a used copy for $5 less?" they are directly transferring the publisher and developers cut to gamestop stockholders. Gamestop is nothing but a parasite on the industry and I hope the publishers lay the smackdown on them.

Once the dickface working the register said to me "you don't want to save money?" when I told him I wanted a new game instead of a used one. Then I told him "shut the fuck up and ring me up" and he looked like he was going to cry. But he shut up and rang me up.

If you can't afford a new game, then either:

A: Get a job.
or
B: Don't buy as many games because you don't need to play every game.

If money is a problem then I bet you have much more concerns then playing the next game, like paying rent/mortgage/bills, buying food and other basic needs. Honestly for all those who buy used games and complain that developers aren't doing their job right, go whack yourself in the head with a crowbar because you're probably why that happens.

F.Y.I. This doesn't go towards those games that you can't by new and used is the only option, like N64 games, etc.

I'll say it again: it's hilarious to see the same people who attack piracy for "not compensating the developers" try to defend used games.


"LOLHYPOCRISYLOL"

God. This whole campaign to get rid of the used games market is so dumb. Let's stop and apply the argument to any durable good that the original owner might want to sell. By the publisher's logic, selling used cars or computers is wrong. In fact, almost everything on ebay is morally reprehensible because it does not put money directly into the pockets of original manufacturers.

Here is how it works: The money from the sale of used ANYTHING goes into the pocket of the original purchaser. This money then allows them to buy more of the product. Essentially money trickles up to the original manufacturers. Banning or otherwise curtailing the secondary markets will decrease the value of a game (or increase its cost depending on how you look at it) because any money sunk into it will be unrecoverable. The decreased value of the games means that people will be unwilling to pay as high a price or will simply buy fewer games.
This not complicated. Did these people skip microeconomics or something?

 

[shadow skill]

*snip*There is already court precedent that says that this whole "you are purchasing a licence" thing is bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

With all do respect, did you read this? It's merely a fight between two companies. I see no movement to Supreme Court, any change to the Copyright Act.

If you can show me otherwise, I'll will be indebted to you for educating me good sir.

Yes I read it. Autodesk was arguing that Vernor did not have the right to sell copies of their software because he was only granted a license to use the software and did not own the disks (In the same way you or I own books.) the court found that Vernor did in fact own the software he bought. Read the sections titled conflicting precedents and findings.

Ahh, I see it now... completely buried in garbage wording.. but I see it now.

(Sanity Check here)
Basically, the court decided that "licensing" is bullshit... just like ya said... But, with that in mind, Dude.. Read a EULA... any random one.. there is some questionable wording (much like the court case)... It's almost disgusting.

Oh most definitely. I think that in many instances contract writers rely on the illusion of legality rather than actual legality. They put things into contracts and hope no one who notices is smart enough or has enough money to fight them in court. People actually believe that these EULA's are legally binding just because they happen to exist.

 

[Airhead]

I get how buying used games doesn't provide any immediate profit to the developers, but I think there's a bigger picture here. The money you use to buy the game doesn't go to the developer, true, but it goes to a person who bought the game new, or to a store.

In the first case the original owner now has more money to potentially spend on another game, maybe a new one. In the second case, the store has money that helps it stay in business and provide an outlet for what the developers make.

Moreover, if the second-hand market is strong, people might be more encouraged to buy new games, because they know it will be possible to get a portion of their money back, or to trade the game for another one.

So all-in-all, no money goes to the makers directly, but the market is stimulated. That's how I see it.